ultrawide, portrait or landscape

[slowpoke748]

i'm curious on how others feel about orientation on ultrawides

#1



#2



both
Camera: Canon EOS 5D
Exposure: 0.002 sec (1/640)
Aperture: f/2.8
Focal Length: 14 mm

i like #1 for its tightness of the composition, but i like #2 since it feels more dynamic. just curious on how others feel and would love comments and suggestions.

thanks!

[Nicole]

Just moved this over to comparison critique because that area is perfect for comparing two shots.

Personally, I think that ultrawides can work in both portrait and landscape orientation depending on the subject. Certain scenes seem to lend themselves to shots in one orientation or the other.

In this case, I prefer the first shot because the focus is more on the statue. Although the statue looks more dramatic because of the angle in the second shot, I find the background too busy and the first thing that my eye goes to is actually the tree rather than the statue.

[Nathan deGargoyle]

Totally agree with Nicole's conclusion, totally disagree with her argument (but ain't that DPS for ya).

I think the statue is much more dramatic in the first shot. In the second the head is so small you have to look twice to see it. The eye is drawn, in the second shot, to the blue sky then the golden tree then.....

[dcclark]

I agree that the first shot is much stronger. I generally agree with Nathan's analysis -- the statue looks a little more like a statue (the head, the proportions) in the first photo, so my eye stays on the statue. In the second, due to the quickly diminishing proportions, my eye is drawn more into the tree.

In the first photo, the tree complements the statue more than in the second.

[slowpoke748]

thanks for the replies guys and gals. so the cardinal rule of don't lose your subject in clutter still applies! lol